A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters
..
one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters


Appellant: Document on the basis of which the Competition Commission arrived at a conclusion was not provided - PIO: Inspection of records was offered - CIC: Appellant is at liberty to avail inspection of records as earlier offered on a convenient date     Right to Information Act 2005    Information about Grievance Petition submitted to PMO and steps taken by DARPG to address the issue as per CPGRAMS norms - PIO: Grievance has been closed by AICTE; Name, designation of concerned person is available on portal - CIC: No further intervention     Right to Information Act 2005    Appellant: Copy of passport renewal application of my wife is not exempt u/s 8 (1) (j) as marriage is presently valid; Apprehension that false information regarding marital status has been indicated - CIC: Personal information of a third party is exempt     Right to Information Act 2005    Information about a dormant Bank account - CIC: The second appeal filed by the appellant was time-barred & in absence of any application for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal, after a lapse of almost two years, the same is not maintainable     Right to Information Act 2005    Copies of orders regarding establishment and jurisdiction of all special courts/ CBI courts at Jaipur for trial of PC Act cases were not available with them - CIC: RTI application was not replied in a comprehensive manner; Provide a revised reply     Right to Information Act 2005    PIO: (Extra) Rs. 10/- has been sent back to the applicant as there is no provision to accept additional fee in advance - CIC: Although the information provided by the PIO is appropriate, the delay caused in providing the same is viewed adversely     Right to Information Act 2005    Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively     Right to Information Act 2005    Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?     Right to Information Act 2005    No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa     Right to Information Act 2005    Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?     Right to Information Act 2005    There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP     Right to Information Act 2005    Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai     Right to Information Act 2005    Are the state-funded ‘public trust institutions’ obligated to provide ‘information’ under the RTI Act?     Right to Information Act 2005    Takeaways from the Supreme Court verdict on the Electoral Bond Scheme     Right to Information Act 2005    We will know, we will live - RTI     Right to Information Act 2005   
2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered
FAQ

Can an applicant request the Information Commission to review its own order?

The Act does not specifically confer a power to the Commission for review of its own decision. The CIC has held that in cases of procedural infirmities which may have led to or may be believed to have led to miscarriage of justice or where there is an error apparent on the face of it, silence of law in regard to review does not prohibit it from undertaking review in specific given circumstances. The CIC relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal (AIR 1981 SC 606) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its power and such power inherent in every court or tribunal.

 

A review may be taken up if:

       there is a technical error in the decision or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record;

       there was an omission to consider certain material facts relevant for the decision or on discovery of new and important matter of evidence;

       appellant was not given opportunity of being heard;

       PIO has not enclosed relevant supporting documents in his comments furnished to CIC.